I expect all those outraged over Hillary's support of the flag burning law

[SaveElmer]

Will be starting threads excoriating Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Tom Lantos, Mark Dayton and other Democrats for support laws and/or amendments for the same purpose.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Yes, actually. I disagree with anybody who tries to restrict free speech.

The difference is that none of those others are at this time overtly pandering to the right wing in order to position themselves for a presidential run.

[stevedeshazer]

2. Please.

You'd be better off defending your candidate's position rather than casting stones at others.

Why is an anti flag burning law needed?

Stick to the issue.

[SaveElmer]

4. It's not...

I'm merely pointing out Hillary is being singled out for her position, when there are supposedly more liberal Democrats who want to go further than her...why not excoriate them. How come I see 3 threads on Hillary's flag position, but none on the others?

The answer is simple...it is another opportunity for the HH on the board to get cranked up!!!

Te fact is Wesley Clark, Dennis Kucinich and Mark Dayton want an amendment...which Hillary is on record as opposing.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. In a way, Hillary's position is worse.

She said she supports legislation criminalizing flag-burning, even though such laws have already been determined to violate the First Amendment. Hillary, a lawyer, would know damn well that this legislation would never make it past a Constitutional challenge, so it would seems that all she's doing is cynically pandering to the right wing for the specific purpose of setting herself up for '08.

I would disagree with any candidate who supports either a law or a constitutional amendment restricting any form of free speech, but whether that would be a deal-breaker would depend on their other positions. With Hillary, though, it's just one of many signs that, like the other DLCers, she's willing to sell progressives down the river and appease the right wing to get elected.

[SaveElmer]

11. So you would include Howard Dean in that condemnation?

He has supported a more expansive version of this law.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. Like I said: I take issue with anybody who supports it.

But Dean isn't running in '08.

[stevedeshazer]

12. Because none of the others has introduced recent legislation

I'm not an HH, if it means what what I think it does. But I think I see your point.

I'm against flag burning laws, amendments, ordinances, rules, social taboos or anything else. It's free speech, period.

I see your point, but it's hard to defend Sen. Clinton for bothering with this now, given everything else going on.

In all sincerity, it just seems to make her look bad and feeds in to the negative sterotype she already suffers from.

Peace.

[SaveElmer]

15. Actually she is merely a co-sponsor...

The law was introduced by Sen. Bennett of Utah...I expect other Democrats will be signing on.

As I said I believe it is a political ploy...and a smart one...

[stevedeshazer]

19. I hope you're right

If so, I'll take it all back.

Um, merely a co-sponsor? That's settin' a pretty high bar, isn't it? :)

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Bashing gays is a political ploy too

and it seems a smart one. BUT IT IS MORALLY AND ETHICALLY REPREHENSIBLE. As is this crap.

Defend the thesis: flag burning should be criminalized.

[SaveElmer]

26. Hardly equivelent...

She is not bashing anyone...except flag burners...who I bash too. She opposes an amendment,and this law is so narrowly drawn it will never get invoked.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. She is not bashing anyone...except flag burners...who I bash too

So she is bashing some one. Your own statement contradicts itself. She supports legislation that is unconstitutional. She panders to the basest form of nationalism in order to appear strong and 'patriotic'.

Defend the thesis: flag buring should be criminalized.

[SaveElmer]

34. Politics is a shitty game...

If we are ever gonna get back in office we are gonna have to play it...

Hillary knows this law is meaningless...very well will be struck down by the courts...she is on record as opposing an amendment for this purpose...she is not the only democrat supporting these types of laws...and the fact of the matter is that most people probably do support it. In a perverse way she is short circuiting something worse like an amendment. The debate is now off an amendment and on this meaningless (in practical terms) law.

If she gets elected do you seriously think flag burning is gonna be her top priority? I don't think so.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. I am not going to support politicians who

propose eliminating rights guaranteed by the constitution. That they do so dishonestly, believing that they will gain points and fool voters into supporting them and that the legislation they propose will never be enacted, makes the matter even worse.

We are periously close to outright fascism in our republic. Pandering to this crap, rather than standing and opposing it, is enabling exactly the climate of intolerance and hatred that will allow the transtion to fascism to be complete.

I have no idea what Hillary Clinton stands for. I know that she is a liar, that she is a manipulator, that she is about nothing other than power. I think she stands for nothing other than her own personal ambition, that she will say and do anything to acheive her goals. That makes her an odious evil person.

I am still waiting for your defense of the thesis that flag burning should be criminalized.

[SaveElmer]

37. And this is why we lose...

If you did a modicum of digging you would see what Hillary Clinton stands for...she is clearly and unambigiously on record as opposed to a flag burning amendment. She has said in the past that she believes a law outlawing flag burnng could be crafted in a constitutional way...she is taking advantage of this bill to publicize that position. She is hardly odious or evil...she is a crafty politician who knows how to play the game. Being unwilling to pander at times, particularly when the consequences are meaningless is helping doom us to permanent minority status.

I do not think flag burning should be criminalized...and if you read this bill it only applies to very narrow circumstances on federal property. It is drawn up much like hate crime legislation, banning it for the purpose of intimidating or harrassing others. I believe in a protest situation it would not be banned. Even there however I don't think it is necessary. I also do not believe it will pass...and if it does will likely be struck down.

I'd rather have a Hillary Clinton that supported this than the next Republican that tries to cram an amendment down our throats.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. No it isn't.

Flag burning is not why we lose elections. Not standing for anything, plus election fraud, plus corporate media control are why we lose elections. I reject that assertion of yours.

I also wonder about this: 'I don't think flag burning should be criminalized'. Huh? Earlier you said "She is not bashing anyone...except flag burners...who I bash too." So we should just bash them, but not criminalize them? Make up your mind.

But what the heck - you support legislation you oppose. Do you see a message problem there? Maybe that sort of behavior is why we lose elections?

The circumstances were not so narrow and included, beyond federal property, 'flag burning that intimidates'. That directly applies to protest situations. By the way, protests are frequently on federal property, such as Washington D.C.

Oh but never mind that this little piece of enabling legislation is proposed by one of our media annointed leaders of the supposedly progressive Democratic Party - after all, there is no way that the lunatic congress or the soon to be lunatic court will approve it. Dream on.

[SaveElmer]

48. It is possible to bash flag burners...

Without wishing to pass constitutional amendment banning the activity. I think flag burning is despicable.

I bash the Ku Klux Klan, but I would not supoprt an amendment outlawing them...

The law, it is my understanding would have to be directly intimidating an individual person...

The overall point however, is Democrats are not good at the political game. Sometimes a politician must position themselves for solely political reasons. Sad but true. It would be great if a guy like Kucinich had a real chance...but he doesn't. Half the people in this country vote for petty and ignorant reasons. And sometimes they have to be pandered too.

As to whether the law would be upheld in the Supreme COurt...I doubt it. Even Scalia has voted to strike down previous laws...in fact I think the last time it was unanimous.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. "The law, it is my understanding would have to be directly intimidating"

an idividual person.

And you find that acceptable?

[SaveElmer]

64. Depends on the type of intimidation I suppose...

Lighting up a flag in someones face might be threatening...I really don't know...

Philosophically how is this different that hate crime laws that prohibit cross burning for example...

But like I said I do not think the legislation is required...I believe Hillary is using a bill she knows will not become a law to position herself politically. That's the lay of the land now unfortunately...Republcians are doing it on far more odious and dangerous ground. Democrats will never be that ruthless in abandoning their principles...but a little pandering is gonna have to take place to win.

[400Years]

69. So you hold a piece of cloth as more important than the freedom

it is supposed to represent?



How stupid.

[seriousstan]

14. Wesley Clark, Dennis Kucinich and Mark Dayton aren't going to run

for President. They are not going to be the likely DLC candidate.

The answer is simple.

[SaveElmer]

16. You don't think Wesley Clark is going to run for Pesident?

Of course he is!!!

[seriousstan]

21. He may run but he probably will not be one of the forerunners.

He has not positioned himself at all. If history is any indicator, he was a distant 4th in the primaries..behind Dean and in front of Sharpton.http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/index.html

If you think he is chasing the WH nearly as hard as Hillary is, you know something that NOBODY else does.

[SaveElmer]

23. He is certainly the favorite on DU...

And on the liberal blogs....and is as subject to scrutiny as anyone else.

[seriousstan]

25. I have doubts that he is the favorite here, except in the minds of his

supporters.

I have seen no poll here that even came close to polling 1 percent of the registered members. I would believe that most here think it is too early to pick a favorite when we don't even know who is in the race yet.

[SaveElmer]

27. Check out the polls on Kos...

ANd the ones I have seen here he is always way out in front.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Clark will run, and he should, though Hillary may be running harder now

As for 2004 history, Clark had alrady won a primary and finished second in three others when he withdrew last time. Both he and Dean had a real shot at winning it all at different times, but Dean was fading faster than Clark when Clark withdrew. Clark read the hand writing on the wall correctly. Kerry was not going to be stopped.

Before you work your way all the way down the list to Sharpton I think you could note in passing that Clark also finished ahead of the former minority leader in the House of Representitives, Dick Gephardt, ahead of the former Vice Presidential nominee, Joe Lieberman, and ahead of the popular ex Governor and then current Senator of the key swing state of Florida, Bob Graham.

The rest of the field had an extra year to campaign over Clark, and, other than Clark and Lieberman, they all ran in Iowa which essentially turned out to both be the begining and the end of the Primary season for all practical purposes.

[seriousstan]

47. Check the link, Sharpton was next on the list.Sharpton had more

delegates than Gephardt, Lieberman or Graham.

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. Fine. I happen to think it matters though when people stop

campaigning and start telling their supporters to vote for someone else instead. Clark was out campaigning for Kerry while Sharpton kept campaigning for himself, for example. For the record I have no quarrel with Sharpton about that. If you want to believe that Sharpton was a stronger candidate than those other men, be my guest.

[MuseRider]

36. Not Kucinich

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll296.xml

He had previously supported it but the last time it came up he voted against it.

[SaveElmer]

38. Making him a what?

A...flip flopper!!!

But, unlike the evil Hillary, I'm sure he didn't change on this (or on abortion) for political reasons!

[MuseRider]

46. I prefer the word growth actually

and it is something I expect them all to do...in a forward, progressive manner.

[formernaderite]

63. I am indeed surprised to see Kucinich's name on that list

but not surprised that Clarks or Daytons appears. As to Hillary....I'd be surprised if she were against the amendment. Sorry, many of us have had it with the right wing appeasers. Triangulation as a political strategy cost us the house and the senate....

[SaveElmer]

66. She has consistently opposed an amendment...

And as consistently said she believed there was a way to protect the flag legislatively.

[Nay]

3. I am outraged about any Dem supporting such a stupid, pandering,

useless, pointless law. Have they learned nothing over the last 5 years? Stop kissing up to the RW! Especially since they have started to implode! Don't help them by supporting their shit.

[billbuckhead]

8. Yeah, but Hillary is held accountable and not Dean

If flag burning laws is what the price for Dems winning is, so be it.

[nosmokes]

5. i'm sorry, could you show me where kuchinich

supports a flag burning amendment?

[SaveElmer]

9. Scroll about 2/3 the way down...

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Civil_Rights.htm

[nosmokes]

29. i'll be damned. i'd a never figured dennis for a yes vote

on that. thanks for the heads-up.

[seriousstan]

10. Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit burning the US flag. (Jun 1999)

Dennis Kucinich http://www.issues2000.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm

[MuseRider]

30. He doesn't.

He did at one point but this was his last vote on the issue.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll296.xml

[skipos]

6. The flag burning issue is just a rightwing attempt to rally the base

Republicans bring this issue up, knowing that dems will take the other side and look like a bunch of terrorist loving America haters to many voters. I'd be fine if every dem said "sounds good to me" when republicans bring up useless wedge issues like this. It would sure take the wind out of their sails.

Good lord, how many people actually burn flags a year? 8?
Personally, I try to ignore this whole issue and hope it will go away.

[quinnox]

17. good point

but I very much doubt it will happen. So many Du Hillary haters just want to use this for yet another bash Hillary-thon.

Sometimes they make stuff up lately too I noticed - like Hillary supported CAFTA -- bzzz -- wrong, she voted against it.

or Hillary voted for bankruptcy reform bill - wrong again - she wasn't present during that vote and later on spoke against it.

[xultar]

18. Welp let's burn them all. They're all DINO Rethug-LITE whores.

I know they'll all wanna be fair and purge all of them.

Don't cha think

They wanna be fair in their purging. We should be fair and purge

all pro-life dems , anti flag burning dems, military industrial complex dems, dems who voted for the war, dems who wish they didn't vote for the war, dems that have had lunch with Bush, dems that have had lunch with republicans, dems that voted for tax cuts, dems who voted against tax cuts, dems who vote, dems who don't vote...etc...

[sandnsea]

31. and have no Dems left at all

Sometimes you really do have to state the obvious. ;)

[xultar]

32. That's my game bay-bay

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. We were having a nuanced dialog on the other thread

But now I feel a need to carry it over onto this one since you felt a need to open up a new seperate thread to bring up other Democrats rather than confining this issue to the origninal thread.

First I will repeat my view of why Clark made the comment he did about flags, then I will recap our earlier dialog, because it speaks to differing motivations for Clinton and Clark, which I think are worth noting:

"Clark was asked at a Town Hall meeting where he spoke during his 2004 Campaign if he would support such an amendment. It wasn't a part of his platform or anything he was planning to address, but true to nature he gave an honest reply of his first reaction. Clark was running mostly to the Left during the primaries, with endorsements from people like Gaylord Nelson, George McGovern, and Michael Moore. His activist base that he was counting on to raise money for him did not like that answer one bit, and he knew it.

Clark explained that the flag holds very deep meaning for him. It was his job in the Army to build cohesion among very diverse soldiers; some middle class, some poor, some White, some Black, some Northern, some Southern, some well educated, some poorly educated etc. He did that under an American flag which he taught belonged equally to each and every one of them. They fought together as a team, and some died, under an American flag; and when soldiers died he personally handed the American flag to many grieving families at funerals held for them. Clark also believes that protests against our government can and should be held with the American flag proudly displayed by dissidents, because the right to protest is deeply American. Clark thinks our nation needs a symbol of what joins us together as a people. The Bill of Rights is part of the fabric of Clark's American Flag.

Maybe it is for Hillary also, but I doubt she has literally bled under the American flag, and watched soldiers die under the American flag. I disagree with Clark on this, but I allow him this difference out of respect."


Now here is our earlier dialog:

My Post:
"Here's an important difference for me.

When Kucinich and Clark expressed their opinions, both men knew damn well that their positions would not be popular with the left leaning Democratic base that votes in primaries. And they were right. It was perhaps the only position Clark took that I strongly disagreed with, though I understood where he was coming from and why. With Clark I knew it was an unpopular but principled stance that he took which, if anything, would hurt his chance to win the Democratic nomination. I assume the same is true for Kucinich.

I can't say for a fact regarding Hillary, but I am suspicious that this is part of her wanting to shake off her image as being a "Liberal" to make her more acceptable to middle of the road and Republican voters. That's just an opinion, but it's mine."

Your Post:
"It probably is...and is a smart move...

Hillary is a ruthless politician, and know's how to play the game...if she can appear more moderate by co-sponsoring this meaningless law, it works for her...good politics if you ask me!"

My Post:
"Hmmm

If I were convinced this was a meaningless law, and if Hillary really needed political cover BADLY, because she was getting raked over the coals for fighting HARD for a full spectrum of meaningful Liberal causes, I might have some sympathy for this type of "playing politics".

Your Post:
"It is meaningless...

Its application is so narrow I doubt it will ever even get invoked...and outside the DU bubble, Hillary is perceived as a liberal, and when the 2008 campaign rolls around and the Republican slime machine gets cranked up, she will be able to point to votes like these to counter it.

At the same time she has not changed her position on the issues, or taken a position many Democrats haven't already taken. Dean, Kerry I believe, and Hillary, have always said they would support a law banning it, just not a constitutional amendment. She is forcing the media to report this "change" in position, when in reality it is no change at all!!!"

My Post:
"I know Hillary is perceived as being a Liberal by the general public

But I feel more comfortable with a politician needing to find cover for taking actual Liberal positions rather than perceived Liberal positions. Hillary is running toward the right from close to center because the center thinks she is over toward the left. This doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. Rather it feels like the worst of both worlds. Democrats get into trouble when they spend too much time trying to convince Republicans that they have nothing to worry about from them.

Clinton is popular in New York. The Republicans are in disarray here (I live in New York). Actually Hillary is free to move slightly toward the left if the spirit moves her, UNLESS she is concerned with battling popular misconceptions about her elsewhere in country that might get in the way of her becoming President. If that is the case, do we have two more years of her leaning to the Right to look forward to while she works on that image problem?"

Your Post
"Hillary does have a liberal record...

95 from the ADA, perfect ratings on abortion rights, the environment, and from unions...other than her stand on the war, which is more nuanced than the screeds on this board, she has a solidly liberal record...more than enough fodder for the right wing sleaze machine!!!

And the fact is she is not leaning to the right...she is creating the perception she is leaning that way. This flag burning nonsense is no different than the position she has always taken...she just repackaged it to get the publicity."

I think it is actually a good dialog, but it does capture probable differing motivations behind Clinton and Clark's positions, be that for better or for worse or for neither.

[SaveElmer]

22. Sorry...I didn't mean to abandon the other...

It's just that the Hillary Bashing goes so over the top sometimes it's hard to get ones points out.

Yes I have no problem with Wesley Clark taking that stand. I don't agree with it, but it seems to be a heartfelt opinion. I believe Hillary Clinton is heartfelt in opposition to an amendment.

However, I realize that it is going to take a ruthless politician, one who will be willing to take the occasional stand based on political positioning, or to ally themself with a Republican or rw Democrat to alter the perception of them created by by media.

This is a game at which the Republcans have excelled, and I'm afraid it is gonna take an equally ruthless approach on our part to combat it.

Hillary has not fundamentally altered her position...and if it helps Democrats win I am willing to go along with it.

However, the mindless Hillary bashing that goes on here makes me nuts, and once in a while some of the hypocricy has to be exposed.

[RagingInMiami]

39. Hillary's pandering is so fucking obvious

Plus she voted for the war.

So now that we're taking sides, if I have to choose for an early candidate, I will go with Wesley Clark seconded by Howard Dean.

Of course, that may change depending on who throws their hat in the ring.

[SaveElmer]

40. Both of whom have support anti-flag burning measures...

Dean a law and Clark the amendment.

[RagingInMiami]

41. But did they vote for the war?

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. And was it pandering? n/t

[RagingInMiami]

44. Was what pandering?

Hillary, IMO, seems to pander more than the others. Back when Bubba was elected in 1992, I remember Hillary being a woman who wanted to impliment a national health care system. I had a lot of respect for her then even though most of the country was terrified of such a powerful and outspoken woman.

Now, I just look at her as just another spineless democratic politician, in the same category as John Kerry.

[SaveElmer]

50. I don't think she does...

It seems that way because every other thread on this board is attacking her...do a little digging, her voting records and the issues she has taken positions on have been emulated by many others. Her voting record is solidly liberal.

The fact is half of this country votes for petty and ignorant reasons (no other way explain Bush), and they have to be pandered too sometimes. If this wasn't true, Dennis Kucinich would be in the White House right now

[RagingInMiami]

58. I'm not basing my opinion on what I read about her on DU

Because I rarely participate in those threads. If she wins the democratic ticket, I will vote for her.

But I will mostly likely vote for somebody else in the primary.

[SaveElmer]

59. That's fair...

Nothing wrong with that!

[SaveElmer]

45. Since neither was in Congress...

No...although Clark initially was sympathetic and later changed. Dean (who I supported), was always opposed to getting in. However, Democrats such as Hillary, Kerry, Edwards and others voted for the resolution for more nuanced reasons than is portrayed in the screeds which chracterize commentary here. And if you look at their statements on the senate floor, it is clear they were not voting for the war, they were voting to give Bush the flexibility they thought he needed to get Saddam to give in.

[RagingInMiami]

49. Meanwhile

People like me and thousands of other average citizens in this country knew it was a huge mistake to give bush that power. Why were we able to see it and not them?

In my opinion, it was pandering because she and the others did not want to appear "weak" to the average warmongering, ignorant American. So they voted for the war even though the real enemy, who supposedly was Osama bin Ladin, had nothing to do with Iraq.

And if they would have read online newspapers from Europe as I did, they would have seen a complete different scenario about Iraq's alleged WMDs.

For the record, I was supporting Florida Senator Bob Graham for the 2004 primary before he dropped out, who did not vote for the war. After he withdrew, I supported Clark. Then I finally volunteered and voted for Kerry.

In times like these, pandering is not going to help the dems because it will be thrown back in our face. It's time to step up aggressively and fight these fuckers on everything. That is what our warmongering citizens respect.

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. I could lead you to documentation from the Summer of 2002

showing Clark's consistent opposition to invading Iraq without compelling proof of a real immanent threat to the U.S. which he is on record testifying before Congress saying did not exist. He even went so far as to testify that even if it could be proved that Iraq had WMD that was insufficient to establish an imminent threat.

I understand that there were many nuances in play at the time, and Clark would have supported an IWR with Levin's amendment attached (which is not the one that passed). I personally did not write Kerry off because of his stance on the IWR, though I was disappointed in it. But I do differ with the characterization that Clark was initially sympathetic. Clark is a military man, he testified as a military man. The military is required to plan for all plausible contingencies, so of course Clark could speak knowledgeably about hypothetical contingencies which theoretically would have warranted American armed intervention. But Clark made the unambiguous point that he did not see any evidence to justify such a scenario.

[SaveElmer]

54. If that is the case...

I stand corrected...I was going off memory!

Too me the Iraq debacle is too complicated to take a black and white position on. I mean on one hand we excoriate those in Congress who voted for the IWR, saying how could they not have seen it for what it was, and on the other we defend them against the charge that they saw the same intelligence Bush did...when in fact we know they did not.

If you read the floor statements of Hillary and others it is clear they were not voting for an immediate invasion, they said as much, but were voting to give Bush flexibility...

the subject of withdrawl is not black and white either. What happens to the Iraqi's who supported the US if we were to just pull out, there would be a massive retaliation campaign against them...many would probably die.

I supported Howard Dean in the primaries because I believed he was right about getting in the war in the first place...thatis we would be creating more terrorists. But I was not so arrogant to believe that I could not be wrong...so had no problem supporting Kerry when he got the nomination.

Same holds now...I don't think an immediate withdrawl is wise because I thin it could lead to massacres. However, it does not mean I don't think the whole thing was a mistake from the beginning, and that it has been mishandled all the way along.

It's just not a simple issue

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. Thank you. And you are right that most Democrats who did vote

for the IWR were NOT voting to go to war with Iraq. Very few of them actually supported Bush's subsequent actions, which contradicted how he said he would use the authority given him by the IWR.

[sandnsea]

52. Honesty

Can we have some damned honesty around here. I wasn't going to say anything in this thread, but DAAAAMN. How the HELL can you say Clark was initially sympathetic AND that Dean was always opposed, IN THE SAME FUCKING SENTENCE. If you want to play the Dean was always opposed to the war, the least you could do is be honest with yourself that Clark's words on Saddam were very nearly the same as Dean's.

And if you can see that Clark expressed early concerns about the possible dangers of Saddam Hussein, then why can't you be see that Dean did too? He did, in fact, say we should give Saddam a couple of months to disarm and then go to war, alone if we have to. That's much bolder than anything Clark said, even in his testimony to Congress.

How do you do that? Why do you do that?

It's as stunning as the Bushbots.

[SaveElmer]

55. See my reply to Tom Rinaldo....

I was going off memory....I stand corrected.

[sandnsea]

62. It isn't simple

True. And I'll just let it go at that.

[IChing]

57. Please give proof of Dean's support since you were a supporter of Dean

and now of Hillary
with a quote and link.

This issue is a Schiavo's feeding tube issue which is ignoring real issues,
and plays into their Rovian world.

I will burn my chinese made american flag tonight.....to celebrate my first amendment rights.

[SaveElmer]

61. I assume you are talking about a flag burning law...

<snip
He told the Rutland Herald in January 2002, "I favor protection of the flag, but I do not favor a constitutional amendment…. A constitutional amendment should be passed only in very rare circumstances." He added, "I do believe the flag ought to be protected… I don't think you should amend the Constitution without a deep purpose. Protecting the flag is certainly a deep purpose, but I don't believe you can amend the Constitution for that."

Everyone follow that? Dean supported a resolution encouraging Congress to "take whatever legislative action it deems necessary" to protect the flag, plus he insisted that a "deep purpose" is a prerequisite for an amendment and he described flag protection as a "deep purpose." At the same time, he argued that he opposed an amendment.

When asked to reconcile his support for the resolution with his opposition to a constitutional amendment, Dean said, "The resolution was crafted so that people like me could take a position supporting the flag without supporting an amendment." What a courageous stand in support of the Bill of Rights.
<snip>

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/850.html

[IChing]

67. thanks I will still burn my chinese or foreign made flag and even a

"Made in the US" flag

for it is my first amendment rights, just because the flag,
to me gives me that freedom
and would ask that of your too,
for the flag is only a symbol
of the freedoms our founding fathers






if the founding fathers had not acted against their own self interest, we would still live in a nation ruled by twenty tobacco planters and five New England merchants.


How about you Elmer?

Where do you stand?

ON FREEDOM and the FIRST AMENDMENT?

Your support
is a reflection of your
beliefs.

thanks

[SaveElmer]

68. To tell you the truth...

I would rather have a Hillary Clinton who supported this meaningless law but opposes a constitutional amendment than a Republican supporting that amendment. Politics blows, and half the people in this counrty are ignorant and petty...in order to win some pandering is gonna have to occur. If this helps her position herself for victory I will live with it.

[AZBlue]

65. Finally! A sane voice on the DU!!! Woo Hoo!!!!!

I also liked your comment: "Politics is a shitty game...
If we are ever gonna get back in office we are gonna have to play it..." Why don't people here understand that more? I so puzzled by that phenomenon on this site. It's frustrating and dumbfounding at the same time.